Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 FlingitNow wrote:

It actually completely supports our position that your attacks (numver of attacks you make in combat) is your characteristic plus modifiers. It then goes on to tell each bonus is a modifier.

If the number of attacks the model makes and the attack characteristic are the exact same thing, then I don't think I see how the line on page 49 is supporting your argument. If they're the same they would be able to just say "make a number of attacks equal to your characteristic" because you're saying the modifiers already changed that value, right?

Also, the order of operations you guys are referring to does not say you do additions before you do subtractions. Just like PEMDAS in math, addition and subtraction are done at the exact same time. There are only 3 steps of modifiers being applied, first multiply, then add/subtract, then set values. Doesn't this cause another problem using your interpretation since the subtraction is not specified as having to come after the addition?

 lessthanjeff wrote:

Also, the order of operations you guys are referring to does not say you do additions before you do subtractions. Just like PEMDAS in math, addition and subtraction are done at the exact same time. There are only 3 steps of modifiers being applied, first multiply, then add/subtract, then set values. Doesn't this cause another problem using your interpretation since the subtraction is not specified as having to come after the addition?

no because you do not stop mid calculation to check the limit since you do additions and subtractions at the same step.

A model has 2 attacks on its profile, -2 from maulerfieds wargear, +1 for charging, +1 for 2 weapons.

2-2 (=0) +1(=1)+1=2 (Check for minimum 1).

not 2 -2 (Set at minimum1) +1+1 =3

If the number of attacks the model makes and the attack characteristic are the exact same thing, then I don't think I see how the line on page 49 is supporting your argument. If they're the same they would be able to just say "make a number of attacks equal to your characteristic" because you're saying the modifiers already changed that value, right? 

RaW definition for the attacks characteristic is that it is tge number of attacks you make. It is simply saying that this is worked out by taking the baseline and adding the following modifiers (the bonus attacks). The opposite position requires the number of attacks you make to not be your attacks characteristic contrary to the RaW definition of the attacks characteristic and that +1 Attack is not a modifier to the attacks characteristic contrary to the definition of modifiers.

Also, the order of operations you guys are referring to does not say you do additions before you do subtractions. Just like PEMDAS in math, addition and subtraction are done at the exact same time. There are only 3 steps of modifiers being applied, first multiply, then add/subtract, then set values. Doesn't this cause another problem using your interpretation since the subtraction is not specified as having to come after the addition?

I've never said addition comes before subtraction. They are done at the same time then you check for minimum 1 after completing the calculation.

Well I won't lie, I'd much rather have it run by ya'lls system than what I've been doing. Maybe I just have the old system of modifiers like bikes +1 to toughness too ingrained in my mind as not affecting things like instant death requirements.

When I'm uncertain about something, I do tend to lean towards the ruling that is less advantageous for me because I think people have a tendency to subconsciously support an interpretation in their own favor and I don't want to seem like I'm bending things to my advantage.

As a last question of clarification from how you guys play things then, a helfrost test on a model with a powerfist will treat him as strength 8 and only fail on a 6 then, right?

I still feel uneasy about things like that, and I hope they will clarify it in an faq, but I'll make sure we discuss and come to some agreement at the place I play. It never even seemed like an issue to me not to distinguish between the characteristic value and the modified value in play at a given time.

 FlingitNow wrote:

If the number of attacks the model makes and the attack characteristic are the exact same thing, then I don't think I see how the line on page 49 is supporting your argument. If they're the same they would be able to just say "make a number of attacks equal to your characteristic" because you're saying the modifiers already changed that value, right? 

RaW definition for the attacks characteristic is that it is tge number of attacks you make. It is simply saying that this is worked out by taking the baseline and adding the following modifiers (the bonus attacks). The opposite position requires the number of attacks you make to not be your attacks characteristic contrary to the RaW definition of the attacks characteristic and that +1 Attack is not a modifier to the attacks characteristic contrary to the definition of modifiers.

(Emphasis mine).

100% this.
Specifically the underlined.

 DeathReaper wrote:

+1 Attack adds to the characteristic because a +1 Attack is a modifier

Prove it. The actual rule doesn't add to a characteristic, it gives a bonus attack to the number of attacks.

Bonus Attacks add to the characteristic in the same was a power axe adds to the characteristic when using that weapon.

Therefore your assessment is incorrect.

Excellent. A Power Axe never adds to the Strength characteristic. It's Strength is equal to the weilder's + 2, but the weilder's Strength isn't modified.

You've asserted that every + is a modifier. You have failed to prove that, and Happy's questions were an attempt to demonstrate that.
Have you answered the question I've posed so many times now? Please do. It's absolutely relevant and your refusal to answer it is telling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

If the number of attacks the model makes and the attack characteristic are the exact same thing, then I don't think I see how the line on page 49 is supporting your argument. If they're the same they would be able to just say "make a number of attacks equal to your characteristic" because you're saying the modifiers already changed that value, right? 

RaW definition for the attacks characteristic is that it is tge number of attacks you make. It is simply saying that this is worked out by taking the baseline and adding the following modifiers (the bonus attacks). The opposite position requires the number of attacks you make to not be your attacks characteristic contrary to the RaW definition of the attacks characteristic and that +1 Attack is not a modifier to the attacks characteristic contrary to the definition of modifiers.

(Emphasis mine).

100% this.
Specifically the underlined.

Except that's not what the Number of Attacks rule says. So... No, it's not RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

+1 Attack adds to the characteristic because a +1 Attack is a modifier

Prove it. The actual rule doesn't add to a characteristic, it gives a bonus attack to the number of attacks.

I have, but I have no issue quoting it again.

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.), subtracting from it (–1, –2, etc.), multiplying it (×2, ×3, etc.) or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.)." (Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section)

The Modifiers section is the only place where we are given permission to apply bonuses (I.E. a +1 to Str or a +1 Attacks etc).

Either the bonus attacks are a modifier and you apply them to the characteristic

Or

Bonus attacks are not a modifier and have mo permission to apply them at all.

Either way you wind up with the same outcome when the Maulerfiend is involved.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Bonus Attacks add to the characteristic in the same was a power axe adds to the characteristic when using that weapon.

Therefore your assessment is incorrect.

Excellent. A Power Axe never adds to the Strength characteristic. It's Strength is equal to the weilder's + 2, but the weilder's Strength isn't modified.

I thought a Power Axe added a +1 to the users Str when making attacks. is this not the case?

It is the case, and the Power Axe is S +1...

"Many weapons (combat knives, maces, axes and other improvised or primitive weapons) don’t confer any Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules. These weapons are simply referred to as ‘close combat weapon’ in the model’s wargear and have the following
profile:" (Weapons chapter, Close Combat Weapons section).

Some CCW's don’t confer any Strength bonuses... The Power Axe however does confer a Str bonus...

Your argument is incorrect.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

+1 Attack adds to the characteristic because a +1 Attack is a modifier

Prove it. The actual rule doesn't add to a characteristic, it gives a bonus attack to the number of attacks.

I have, but I have no issue quoting it again.

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.), subtracting from it (–1, –2, etc.), multiplying it (×2, ×3, etc.) or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.)." (Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section)

The Modifiers section is the only place where we are given permission to apply bonuses (I.E. a +1 to Str or a +1 Attacks etc).

So, just to clarify, every + anywhere in any rule must be adding to a characteristic?
So what characteristic do +'s to Deny the Witch dice modify? Cite rules.

Either the bonus attacks are a modifier and you apply them to the characteristic

Or

Bonus attacks are not a modifier and have mo permission to apply them at all.

Basic math proves you wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Bonus Attacks add to the characteristic in the same was a power axe adds to the characteristic when using that weapon.

Therefore your assessment is incorrect.

Excellent. A Power Axe never adds to the Strength characteristic. It's Strength is equal to the weilder's + 2, but the weilder's Strength isn't modified.

I thought a Power Axe added a +1 to the users Str when making attacks. is this not the case?

It is the case, and the Power Axe is S +1...

"Many weapons (combat knives, maces, axes and other improvised or primitive weapons) don’t confer any Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules. These weapons are simply referred to as ‘close combat weapon’ in the model’s wargear and have the following
profile:" (Weapons chapter, Close Combat Weapons section).

Some CCW's don’t confer any Strength bonuses... The Power Axe however does confer a Str bonus...

Your argument is incorrect.

Wrong. Your argument would have a SM Librarian with a Force Axe making a Strength test on S5. The actual rules, however, clarify that it's the Strength of the weapons attacks, and not the user, that includes the bonus.

“If the weapon confers a Strength bonus, the Strength of the weapon’s attacks is equal to that of the user after any such modifiers have been applied.”

It's not a bonus to the characteristic, it's added to the characteristic to find the S of the weapon. Exactly like number of attacks.

Edit: Also, still dodging that HoW question? It's okay, I know you're doing so because you can't come up with an answer (citing rules) that supports your argument. So just admit that and I'll drop it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

+1 Attack adds to the characteristic because a +1 Attack is a modifier

Prove it. The actual rule doesn't add to a characteristic, it gives a bonus attack to the number of attacks.

I have, but I have no issue quoting it again.

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.), subtracting from it (–1, –2, etc.), multiplying it (×2, ×3, etc.) or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.)." (Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section)

The Modifiers section is the only place where we are given permission to apply bonuses (I.E. a +1 to Str or a +1 Attacks etc).

So, just to clarify, every + anywhere in any rule must be adding to a characteristic?
So what characteristic do +'s to Deny the Witch dice modify? Cite rules.

Waoh guy, don't put words in my mouth, I never said that...

Any + (Or - or x or ÷) that affects a characteristic is a modifier.

Not all +'s affect characteristics, but the ones that do are certainly and demonstrably affecting a characteristic.

rigeld2 wrote:

Either the bonus attacks are a modifier and you apply them to the characteristic

Or

Bonus attacks are not a modifier and have mo permission to apply them at all.

Basic math proves you wrong.

And how do you know to use basic math? The Modifiers section? so why are you referencing the rules for modifiers if you are claiming it is not a modifier? (If you are claiming it is not a modifier, that is what I got from your post).

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Either the bonus attacks are a modifier and you apply them to the characteristic

Or

Bonus attacks are not a modifier and have mo permission to apply them at all.

Basic math proves you wrong.

And how do you know to use basic math? The Modifiers section? so why are you referencing the rules for modifiers if you are claiming it is not a modifier? (If you are claiming it is not a modifier, that is what I got from your post).

Or, like Stealth or Shrouded, they modify something that is not a characteristic, such as the number of attacks you make in close combat.

Or, like Stealth or Shrouded, they modify something that is not a characteristic, such as the number of attacks you make in close combat.

RaW disagrees that the number of attacks you make in combat is not a characteristic:

BrB page8 wrote:ATTACKS
This shows the number of times a model attacks during close combat.

So anyone arguing that "number of attacks made in combat" /= Attacks characteristic is not arguing RaW.

Also anyone arguing that the bonus attacks are not modifiers are not arguing RaW as they state that they are as DeathReaper has shown:

BrB page8 wrote: Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.), subtracting from it (–1, –2, etc.), multiplying it (×2, ×3, etc.) or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.).

BrB page49 wrote: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn.

So we know we have a modifier to a characteristic. Further proof comes from the sentence above on page 49:

"Each engaged makes makes a number of attacks (A)" this part of the sentence is defining what your attacks characteristic A is note how it is the same as above: "as indicated on its profile, plus the following bonus attacks:" this tells us how to calculate the value by taking the number on the profile and adding the modifiers that follow once again PROVING that the bonus attacks are modifiers.

So all the RaW agrees they are modifiers to the attacks characteristic. To believe they are not means you believe that the BrB is lying when it defines the attacks characteristic, is wrong when it defines multiple modifiers, is making a new definition of number of attacks you make in close combat on page 49 that whilst identical to page 8 means something entirely different, that when they put +1 attack they don't mean +1 attack. Sorry but if your interpretation disagrees with every single written word on the subject you are on very shaky ground.

As a last question of clarification from how you guys play things then, a helfrost test on a model with a powerfist will treat him as strength 8 and only fail on a 6 then, right?

Why would it? It appears like you are trolling now as this was already covered. For the record I don't play Chaos and if I did I wouldn't take lasher tendrils as AV12 walkers are too easy to kill. As for the question once again that is a conditional modifier that only applies when the model is striking blows with that weapon. Is the model striking blows with the weapon when taking the Hellfrost test? Just like it was when some one asked about the attacks characteristic test.

Number of Attacks
Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:
• +1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn. Models in units that made a disordered charge do not get this bonus.
• +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra Attack, even if you have four arms and a sword in each.
• Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks.
For example, a unit of five Orks with two Melee weapons rolls fifteen dice (2 Attacks on their profile +1 for two weapons = 3 each). If they were charging, however, they would roll twenty (2 Attacks on their profile +1 for charging +1 for two weapons = 4 each!).

Is the attacks characteristic part of their profile? Yes.
Does Lash whips EXPLICITLY say it modifies the attacks characteristic? Yes.
Does Lash Whips say it modifies bonus attacks? No.

You keep saying you have proven it "RAW", but you haven't actually proven it. Your opinion is noted and if that is HYWPI that's fine too. You have offered no concise counterpoint to the quotes repeatedly offered from "Number of Attacks" and instead offer a disjointed interpretation spliced from multiple sections to try and read it differently for reasons no one with a different view from you seems to understand. It's not just that we don't agree, we don't even know what the basis for your claims are. That's why you get questions regarding the Strength modifiers.

Personally, if I'm asked what the "Number of Attacks" I have is and how it is calculated, I'm going to use the "Number of Attacks" section, not some hodgepodge of sentence fragments, selective quoting, "English parsing" and equivocation. If you want to have the last word and go on with what seems to amount to a "Can too, can not, CAN TOO" feel free, but don't take a lack of further rebuttals from others as acceptance of your opinion.

Is the attacks characteristic part of their profile? Yes. 
Does Lash whips EXPLICITLY say it modifies the attacks characteristic? Yes. 
Does Lash Whips say it modifies bonus attacks? No. 

Do bonus attacks modify the number of attacks you make in combat?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

+1 Attack adds to the characteristic because a +1 Attack is a modifier

Prove it. The actual rule doesn't add to a characteristic, it gives a bonus attack to the number of attacks.

I have, but I have no issue quoting it again.

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.), subtracting from it (–1, –2, etc.), multiplying it (×2, ×3, etc.) or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.)." (Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section)

The Modifiers section is the only place where we are given permission to apply bonuses (I.E. a +1 to Str or a +1 Attacks etc).

So, just to clarify, every + anywhere in any rule must be adding to a characteristic?
So what characteristic do +'s to Deny the Witch dice modify? Cite rules.

Waoh guy, don't put words in my mouth, I never said that...

So prove that +1 Attack is a modifier. Quoting the modifier rules doesn't do that (which is what you'd did) unless you're asserting that Attack always refers to characteristics. In you believe that, please read HoW and explain your stance in reference to that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Either the bonus attacks are a modifier and you apply them to the characteristic

Or

Bonus attacks are not a modifier and have mo permission to apply them at all.

Basic math proves you wrong.

And how do you know to use basic math? The Modifiers section? so why are you referencing the rules for modifiers if you are claiming it is not a modifier? (If you are claiming it is not a modifier, that is what I got from your post).

I'm not referencing the rules for modifiers. The + sign is basic math.

So prove that +1 Attack is a modifier. Quoting the modifier rules doesn't do that (which is what you'd did) unless you're asserting that Attack always refers to characteristics. In you believe that, please read HoW and explain your stance in reference to that. 

Does it modify the number of attacks a model makes in close combat?

 FlingitNow wrote:

So prove that +1 Attack is a modifier. Quoting the modifier rules doesn't do that (which is what you'd did) unless you're asserting that Attack always refers to characteristics. In you believe that, please read HoW and explain your stance in reference to that. 

Does it modify the number of attacks a model makes in close combat?

Yes.

Ergo the +1 attack from two CCW's is in fact a modifier.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

So prove that +1 Attack is a modifier. Quoting the modifier rules doesn't do that (which is what you'd did) unless you're asserting that Attack always refers to characteristics. In you believe that, please read HoW and explain your stance in reference to that. 

Does it modify the number of attacks a model makes in close combat?

Yes.

Ergo the +1 attack from two CCW's is in fact a modifier.

Do you think the penny has dropped that something that modifies the attacks characteristic is a characteristic modifier?

There. Are no rules.for.changing characteristics without using modifiers...so yes its a modifier

blaktoof wrote:
There. Are no rules.for.changing characteristics without using modifiers...so yes its a modifier

So characteristics are defined in the Assault Phase section?

I'm not claiming to change a characteristic without a modifier. Again, please don't put words in my mouth.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
There. Are no rules.for.changing characteristics without using modifiers...so yes its a modifier

So characteristics are defined in the Assault Phase section?

I'm not claiming to change a characteristic without a modifier. Again, please don't put words in my mouth.

Do bonus attacks modify the number of times a model attacks in close combat? Simple yes/no will do.

Sorry for going back in Quotes but i feel the discussion hasn't moved forward by much. Still relevant.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
How does the following not make a distinction between bonus attacks and the Attacks characteristic profile?

Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:

The underlined is the Attacks characteristic.
The italics are a distinctly separate thing, called "bonus attacks" that are used to determine the "Number of attacks" (heading of the rule in question).

Explain where my statement is incorrect.

Rigeld, we know for one that Hammer of Wrath is a completely different attack, at a different I step, and un-related to the A characteristic.

I'll concede that the capitalization of attacks is irrelevant (referencing a prior post).
It must be, or HoW is absolutely related to the Attacks characteristic.

Hammer of Wrath is a separate attack, just like Mandiblasters or Soul Blaze. It is not a models' "Standard Attack" which makes use of the Attack Characteristic. The use of the word "Attack" is indeed misleading, and i could easily make the same connection: It is an "Attack" as such it is also affected: Old One Eye can only HoW 1 Attack against Lasher Tendrils... However i would like to point out "This Attack does not benefit from any of the model’s special rules (such as Furious Charge, Rending etc.)" As such i would think that "Lasher Tendrils" do not affect HoW. But i would point out yet again that this is a different, not really relevant subject. We are discussing Attacks and Modifiers, and as such i would keep HoW out of it...

rigeld2 wrote:

Secondly, if you must really abide by your above argument, that the "bonus attacks" are completely independent to the Attacks characteristic profile, then following this rule:
"Additionally, when it makes its close combat attacks, it can choose instead to make a single Smash Attack."
Why would you suddenly ignore these "bonus attacks"? The above only talks about Attacks and close combat attacks, why is the "bonus attacks" of +1 +1 suddenly ignored?

Because making multiple Smash attacks does not follow the Smash rule that tells you to make a single Smash attack.
It's literally right there in the rule you quoted.

I am not saying multiple Smash attacks, but a single Smash attack with bonus attacks seems to be part of your argument, as you are quite clearly stating that these bonuses are NOT Modifiers (and only Modifiers apply Set Values).
Why is a single Smash attack not 3 rolls To Hit? I apply the "bonus modifiers" after the Set Value of 1 Attack. Please explain how you apply a set value of (1) after bonus attacks if they are not within the "subtracting from it (–1, –2, etc.)" part that comes before "or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.)"?

rigeld2 wrote:

Thirdly, the rule you quoted:

Spoiler:

Number of Attacks

Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:

• +1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn. Models in units that made a disordered charge do not get this bonus.
• +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra Attack, even if you have four arms and a sword in each.
• Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks.

Where do the Tendrils Add/Remove Attacks? We know that "as indicated on its characteristics profile" is a set value, so the Tendrils are "Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks" But in this case, the "extra Attacks" are bonus Attacks of -1.

False. The Profile is not a set value - it's the number you start with. It's then modified by the Lasher Tendrils, as I've demonstrated.

If you disagree with this third statement, then please explain to me which rules you are using to provide the enemy models with the number of attacks they are using?

The Lasher Tendrils rules that specify they modify the characteristic of course. As I've said.

Are you somehow modifying the value contained in "as indicated on its characteristics profile" in the Rule above? If so, which rule allows you to do so? It would have to specifically state that you are modifying the Profile of the model (Permanently? Should i cross out the "A" value and write a new one in my book every game?).

Yes, I'm modifying the number on the characteristic profile as the Lasher Tendrils rule requires. It's not permanent as the Lasher Tendrils rule specifies while the model is in base contact.

"as indicated on its characteristics profile" IS a set value. It is the value that you read on a model's Codex. You never write a new profile during the game with affects on it. You always refer the the exact Number as is stated on the Codex, and apply Modifiers to it (per Modifiers Rule).
A Space Marine Veteran Sergeant will always have 2 Attacks on his characteristics profile that you can find in a Space Marine Codex. That value will not change during the course of the game, having a printed version of the Codex should not change values. A glitch on an digital codex could always happen...

In the Spoiler above, only:
• +1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn. Models in units that made a disordered charge do not get this bonus.
• +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra Attack, even if you have four arms and a sword in each.
• Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks.
Can modify a value that you read from the Codex.
Lasher Tendrils are part of "Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks."

Lasher Tendrils are just as much of a "bonus attack" than having 2CCW or Charge Bonus are.
Whether these are Attacks or attacks or aTtAcks, i don't think it would change the result of A(1)+1+1-2= 1 Attack. Even if i do agree with FlingItNow that Attacks are a defined term found throughout the BrB.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Hammer of Wrath is a separate attack, just like Mandiblasters or Soul Blaze. It is not a models' "Standard Attack" which makes use of the Attack Characteristic. The use of the word "Attack" is indeed misleading, and i could easily make the same connection: It is an "Attack" as such it is also affected: Old One Eye can only HoW 1 Attack against Lasher Tendrils... However i would like to point out "This Attack does not benefit from any of the model’s special rules (such as Furious Charge, Rending etc.)" As such i would think that "Lasher Tendrils" do not affect HoW. But i would point out yet again that this is a different, not really relevant subject. We are discussing Attacks and Modifiers, and as such i would keep HoW out of it...

Your argument (and others) hinges on references to Attack being shorthand for the Attacks characteristic.
You want to keep HoW out because it demonstrates that this is incorrect - Attack demonstrably does not refer to the Attacks characteristic.

I am not saying multiple Smash attacks, but a single Smash attack with bonus attacks seems to be part of your argument, as you are quite clearly stating that these bonuses are NOT Modifiers (and only Modifiers apply Set Values).

Because you don't have permission to apply bonus attacks to Smash. If you roll to hit more than once, did you use a single attack?

"as indicated on its characteristics profile" IS a set value.

Really? Since set values are applied last, no additions or subtraction a can ever happen. Are you sure about your statement? Perhaps a rules quote would help...

In the Spoiler above, only:
• +1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn. Models in units that made a disordered charge do not get this bonus.
• +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra Attack, even if you have four arms and a sword in each.
• Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks.
Can modify a value that you read from the Codex.
Lasher Tendrils are part of "Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks."

Statement without support.

Lasher Tendrils are just as much of a "bonus attack" than having 2CCW or Charge Bonus are.

They're worded compete,y differently, so I'm not sure why you would come to that conclusion.

Whether these are Attacks or attacks or aTtAcks, i don't think it would change the result of A(1)+1+1-2= 1 Attack. Even if i do agree with FlingItNow that Attacks are a defined term found throughout the BrB.

You and Fling are demonstrably wrong - HoW proves it.

HoW proves nothing. All it proves is a flamer wielding Assault Marine charges a Lasher tendril Maulerfiend the only attack he gets is his Hammer of wrath.

Once again the question you can not answer without destroying your argument is:


Do the bonus attacks modify the number of attacks a model makes in close combat?

I'm guessing your side will once again refuse to answer this simple question because you know your interpretation has no grounds in RaW. Another post without an answer will be taken as concession.

 FlingitNow wrote:
HoW proves nothing. All it proves is a flamer wielding Assault Marine charges a Lasher tendril Maulerfiend the only attack he gets is his Hammer of wrath.

Once again the question you can not answer without destroying your argument is:


Do the bonus attacks modify the number of attacks a model makes in close combat?

I'm guessing your side will once again refuse to answer this simple question because you know your interpretation has no grounds in RaW. Another post without an answer will be taken as concession.

Number of attacks? Yes. Attack characteristic? No.


Or are you saying an Assault Marine with CCW and Pistol is A2 in close combat?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Hammer of Wrath is a separate attack, just like Mandiblasters or Soul Blaze. It is not a models' "Standard Attack" which makes use of the Attack Characteristic. The use of the word "Attack" is indeed misleading, and i could easily make the same connection: It is an "Attack" as such it is also affected: Old One Eye can only HoW 1 Attack against Lasher Tendrils... However i would like to point out "This Attack does not benefit from any of the model’s special rules (such as Furious Charge, Rending etc.)" As such i would think that "Lasher Tendrils" do not affect HoW. But i would point out yet again that this is a different, not really relevant subject. We are discussing Attacks and Modifiers, and as such i would keep HoW out of it...

Your argument (and others) hinges on references to Attack being shorthand for the Attacks characteristic.
You want to keep HoW out because it demonstrates that this is incorrect - Attack demonstrably does not refer to the Attacks characteristic.

I am not saying multiple Smash attacks, but a single Smash attack with bonus attacks seems to be part of your argument, as you are quite clearly stating that these bonuses are NOT Modifiers (and only Modifiers apply Set Values).

Because you don't have permission to apply bonus attacks to Smash. If you roll to hit more than once, did you use a single attack?

"as indicated on its characteristics profile" IS a set value.

Really? Since set values are applied last, no additions or subtraction a can ever happen. Are you sure about your statement? Perhaps a rules quote would help...

In the Spoiler above, only:
• +1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn. Models in units that made a disordered charge do not get this bonus.
• +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra Attack, even if you have four arms and a sword in each.
• Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks.
Can modify a value that you read from the Codex.
Lasher Tendrils are part of "Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks."

Statement without support.

Lasher Tendrils are just as much of a "bonus attack" than having 2CCW or Charge Bonus are.

They're worded compete,y differently, so I'm not sure why you would come to that conclusion.

Whether these are Attacks or attacks or aTtAcks, i don't think it would change the result of A(1)+1+1-2= 1 Attack. Even if i do agree with FlingItNow that Attacks are a defined term found throughout the BrB.

You and Fling are demonstrably wrong - HoW proves it.

I will now drop HoW, as i said in the post you Quoted, i do not find it relevant here. HoW is separate as it does not use the Attack Characteristic, even if it has the word "Attack" contained. I also agreed with you that it would be taken into account (Old One eye) but don't seem to have noticed the part where i actually agreed with you.

Now, pray tell what rules your are using to Modify a model's number of attacks, when faced with Lasher Tendrils?
I use these:

Number of Attacks

Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:

• +1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn. Models in units that made a disordered charge do not get this bonus.
• +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra Attack, even if you have four arms and a sword in each.
• Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks.

These are the only rules governing the number of attacks you make in Close Combat. If i am missing rules that by RaW define how many Attacks a model makes, please enlighten me...

The Rules quoted above are clear: "a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile" This is the number printed in your Codex. It IS a set value. Not in "Modifiers" terms a set value, but a set number printed on black and white on paper. It cannot change unless you insist on amending your printed Codex...
You then have bonuses for Charging and 2 weapons. Only "Other Bonuses: Models may have..." Covers any type of other rules that increases (Or Decreases) your A Characteristic read from your printed Codex.

Relatively simple.

 FlingitNow wrote:
HoW proves nothing. All it proves is a flamer wielding Assault Marine charges a Lasher tendril Maulerfiend the only attack he gets is his Hammer of wrath.

So "minimum of 1" means nothing to you? And how does it prove nothing? If your assertion is that Attack == Attacks characteristic, then the HoW rule must read as follows:



That looks correct to you? Please explain how you make an Attacks characteristic.

Once again the question you can not answer without destroying your argument is:

Do the bonus attacks modify the number of attacks a model makes in close combat?

Yes. It doesn't destroy my argument at all. I've said as much from the beginning.

I'm guessing your side will once again refuse to answer this simple question because you know your interpretation has no grounds in RaW. Another post without an answer will be taken as concession.

Since you're on ignore I didn't have the "pleasure" of seeing what you said until now - because Happy quoted you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I will now drop HoW, as i said in the post you Quoted, i do not find it relevant here. HoW is separate as it does not use the Attack Characteristic, even if it has the word "Attack" contained. I also agreed with you that it would be taken into account (Old One eye) but don't seem to have noticed the part where i actually agreed with you.

So "Attack" only means "Attacks characteristic" when it's convenient to you?

Now, pray tell what rules your are using to Modify a model's number of attacks, when faced with Lasher Tendrils?

The modifier rules. Lasher Tendrils specifies it modifies the Attacks characteristic. The model making the attacks isn't using the Lasher Tendrils wargear, so the quoted rule doesn't apply - the Model doesn't have the special rule, a different model does.

These are the only rules governing the number of attacks you make in Close Combat.

False. Lasher Tendrils modifies them, as stated in its special rules.

If i am missing rules that by RaW define how many Attacks a model makes, please enlighten me...

It's been quoted in this thread. Perhaps you've read the rule?

The Rules quoted above are clear: "a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile" This is the number printed in your Codex. It IS a set value. Not in "Modifiers" terms a set value, but a set number printed on black and white on paper. It cannot change unless you insist on amending your printed Codex...

It's a set value but not a set value? Words mean things.

You then have bonuses for Charging and 2 weapons. Only "Other Bonuses: Models may have..." Covers any type of other rules that increases (Or Decreases) your A Characteristic read from your printed Codex.

No, it doesn't. "Other Bonuses" covers rules your model has. It does not cover rules other models have.

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
HoW proves nothing. All it proves is a flamer wielding Assault Marine charges a Lasher tendril Maulerfiend the only attack he gets is his Hammer of wrath.

Once again the question you can not answer without destroying your argument is:


Do the bonus attacks modify the number of attacks a model makes in close combat?

I'm guessing your side will once again refuse to answer this simple question because you know your interpretation has no grounds in RaW. Another post without an answer will be taken as concession.

Number of attacks? Yes. Attack characteristic? No.


Or are you saying an Assault Marine with CCW and Pistol is A2 in close combat?

What is the rulebook definition of the attacks characteristic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So "minimum of 1" means nothing to you? And how does it prove nothing? If your assertion is that Attack == Attacks characteristic, then the HoW rule must read as follows: 

How many attacks would the model make in my example? My assertion is that Attacks characteristic = number of attacks a model makes in close combat. As per the rulebook. Are you claiming the rulebook is wrong? Your RaW is based on the rulebook being incorrect? How is that RaW?